What you see is not always What You Get ISN

What you see is not always What You Get ISN When you use a visual HTML editor like FrontPage or Dreamweaver, they say that WYSIWYG: what you see is what you get. This means that in theory, what you see while you are editing the page should look similar to what you get when you're done. Word processor, but now it is sufficient for the job when it comes to printing (which was not as reliable), there are still problems in HTML editor and Web browser - of course, if you spent more than five minutes with Visual editor HTML, then you know that. The advantages of WYSIWYG WYSIWYG is pretty low at this point - its advantages are obvious, allowing you to see your page exactly the way you want while you're writing that, without surprises. In the early days, are sometimes regarded as a sort of "interactive print preview. Professional keyboard player in the first objects of use in publishing, but it is quite simple and quick that you have come to dominate. The alteative date, however, is to retu to the days of planning controls, which is not something that most people want to do. On the web, WYSIWY can be much more problematic because it leaves the other end of the program is not static, printed page - is the HTML code, which must be interpreted by a web browser before it is something visible. All browsers are not the same The first problem with what you see in an editor to get in a browser that is available all the different browsers is not always the page look the same. What HTML editors are supposed to account for errors in Inteet Explorer? They can not, really. Every piece of software for editing HTML is forced to either write their own HTML rendering engine (the engine that decides how the code is translated into a visible page), or use an existing program. Recently, for example, the Society of Dreamweaver past the engine, which means that pages will show you how Opera. FrontPage has always been closer to Inteet Explorer. Why is open source Mozilla, there are a lot of HTML editors on the basis of its engine, the more useful is Nvu. Not exactly help, but when it comes to looking at things the same in all browsers - if you use Dreamweaver, for example, what you see is what you get at the Opera, but not necessarily in Inteet Explorer. This problem can be partially solved by testing in every browser, but doing this does not allow you to see what your page will look like what you're going. Perhaps what we see, if it is not what you get if demand from users of WYSIWYG software, is something wrong when it comes to web, for the simple reason that everyone should be using the site the same way , designs and for its intended use. In reality, the site has been designed to be a file format that has been interpreted by the program that receives, in the sense that if a browser wants to put aside all the graphics, or ignore all of their images, so it's perfectly justified to do so. This is particularly important when the mobile browser - are simply not large enough for the normal screen drawings, and it is foolish to force them to try. Realizing this is one of the most important differences between being a good designer and who is evil. Bad designers constantly nudging in their designs, making every effort to think about exactly how the intent of each browser is possible, even if it doubles the size and complexity of the code. A good designer to write code that looks good in all browsers, but not necessarily have to be pixel perfect.